May 5, 2016

It made me think about something else I read this morning: "MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Caught on Hot Mic Ogling Melania Trump." That's in Variety, which is going after Matthews for saying, "Did you see her walk? Runway walk. My God is that good." I have trouble even seeing what's wrong with that. Modeling was her chosen profession and she has real skills that people admire. Variety puts Matthews's remark into what's supposed to look like a pattern: "The pundit has been accused of sounding sexist on live television many times before. Here’s a look at some of his sexually regressive greatest hits." That sounds awful, but I don't see the pattern. Just because you make a list doesn't mean you have a list of things that belong together. But what I wanted to pull out of that list — because I'm trying to understand why Steinem wants to see humiliation — was something about humiliation:

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Matthews credited said she appealed to voters as a suffering wife, “I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about her mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let’s not forget the reason she is a U.S. Senator, the reason she is a candidate for President is because her husband messed around. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t get there on her merits, because everyone felt, ‘My God, this woman stood up under humiliation.’ Right? That’s what happened.” Matthews later apologized and admitted he “sounded nasty.”

It should be enough that the better candidate wins and the loser concedes with dignity. Why do we want to stare into the pain of the one who is defeated? What's wrong with us? Those questions relate to what I said on Tuesday and what Gloria Steinem said about the coming election, but it's a weirder dynamic that Chris Matthews talked about, the embrace of the humiliated woman, the desire to see her win because of her humiliation. It makes me wonder whether we really accept the truly independent, strong, successful woman. Maybe we need our woman pre-crushed.

But I'm looking back to the last time Hillary Clinton was elected, which was 9 years ago. Maybe we've changed, and that humiliation happened 18 years ago. Whatever taste for humiliated women America may retain at this point, is Hillary still crushed enough?

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry said:

Althouse wrote: Modeling was her chosen profession and she has real skills that people admire.

Through a quirk in immigration law, models, nearly half of them without high-school diplomas, are admitted on H-1B visas, as highly skilled workers, along with scientists and computer programmers, who are required to show proof of a college degree.

What a lovely mashup of intellectual snobbery and fake distinction this is! Think of all the athletes, artists, actors, and musicians who work in the U.S. despite not being "highly skilled" workers like "scientists and compute programmers." Of course, through a quirk of immigration law they have O and P visas.

I am sure there will be a lot of this virtue signaling by the elites. But it may backfire, as The Donald always seems to absorb their energy and increase his, kind of like those old 1950s Japanese sci-fi movies that were mentioned in your earlier posts.

In addition, at Gloria Steinem's core, she isn't so much interested in equality for women, but rather in emaciating men. Humiliation, correct? Fortunately she's not going to get her wish.

Isn't this what we see going on at Universities with the new standard of guilty until proven innocent for young men accused of sexual misconduct? Humiliation.

Gloria Steinem, unlike many Americans, has no concern, regard, or interest in the survival of the nuclear family; despite its advantages for the well being of millions of women and children. She couldn't run one if she tried.

It's rather obvious that what Gloria Steinem wants by seeing Donald Trump "humiliated" is that his ideas become off-limits and her ideas become more accepted--maybe even embraced. Something like the way Democrats won landslide victories after Richard Nixon's resignation and were able to pass a lot of legislation they wouldn't have normally been able to.

Even if Clinton wins, she's going to be routinely humiliated along the way. Trump will see to that.

And what Matthews said about how HRC got her Senate seat was 100% correct. Otherwise, how is a lawyer at an Arkansas law firm qualified to be a Senator from NY? Any real feminist would grasp that Hillary's career has been built entirely on her husband"s coat tails and ejacualate.

Maybe feminists are really the ones who have a hard time accepting strong, successful women. Are feminists really interested in true "independence" when they push women toward further gov't dependency?

There are women many who raise sons and daughters that hold the full respect of their immediate and extended families. Look at the millions of women in the African American community pulling double duty, working and raising kids and grandkids.

Sarah Palin seems like a self-made women, and she could squeeze and ounce of respect from the feminist left.

Althouse asks: Whatever taste for humiliated women America may retain at this point, is Hillary still crushed enough?

The answer is NO! Hillary! is not still crushed enough.Perhaps Trump will finally crush her enough and extinguish her last gasp candidacy for President.

Hillary! ihas never stood on her own two feet. She is a propped up victim of Bill, of patriarchy, blah blah blah.The country's first woman President should be a strong independent woman of excellent moral character.Not Hillary! !

The Chris Matthews ogling comment and reactions to it are examples of feminists desire to have cake and eat it too.

Women are glorified for projecting their sexuality, but criticize men for reacting to it unless it is on the woman's terms. I guess not unlike the way women are supposed to be permitted to define when a human fetus is a human- if she wants it to be human it is, and if she wants to be ogled then the men should ogle but they damn well better turn it off on demand.

As a woman I find this manipulation tiresome and grotesque, so I can only imagine how it makes men feel.

We obsess over humiliation because it means some person we don't like has internalized, and to some extent cooperated with, their defeat. It's not a very pretty sentiment, but it's very much human nature.

"Why do we want to stare into the pain of the one who is defeated? What's wrong with us?" What do you mean, we? "We" live normal lives. "We" don't wallow in other people's pain. Speak for yourself. Speak for your fellow "feminists," eager to assert equality by putting down men, devising the next ritual of humiliation. Ask Paul Nungesser. Ask Phi Kappa Psi at UVA. Observe a few child custody hearings.

"the embrace of the humiliated woman, the desire to see her win because of her humiliation. It makes me wonder whether we really accept the truly independent, strong, successful woman." If the humiliated women is left, the humiliator is excused and the woman must win; if not, not. If the woman is left, "we" will do anything to fabricate the pretense of the illusion of the chimera that she is strong; if not, not.

"And "slink" was absolutely the right word." And boy, did you enjoy using it, reveling in your rightness.

Not sure Chris Matthews can be labeled a sexist. It was Obama who first sent a thrill up Matthew's leg in 2008 and again in 2012:

Matthews in 2008: "I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often."

and in 2011: "“You know, I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me, every time I hear those words,” Matthews said.

Something like the way Democrats won landslide victories after Richard Nixon's resignation...

Which ought to remind everyone that Hillary's only real accomplishments in life are having married a charming demagogue with unbridled ambition, and staying married to a serial philander and likely rapist. Hillary's one and only claim to political fame is she's Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. Without him she'd be just some obscure probate attorney with a mysterious neck bulge. If Steinem was even 1% sincerely devoted to whatever ideology feminism espouses she'd hold HRC in utter contempt as the epitome of a grasping wife who clings to her worthless spouse simply for the material goodies he can provide. However, as I have written elsewhere, feminism is dead. Steinem and company murdered it on behalf of WJC to help him avoid the fate of Richard Nixon.

For the Matthews/Melania interaction, this was the part that elevates it to creepy: "I could watch that runway show,” he added. That's sick shit. I have 2 daughters in their 20's and if a man said that about them and I heard it I would sock them in the face.

And again, imagine anyone from Fox News having a similar comment about Chelsea (blech, but work with me here) and the uproar would be deafening.

I don't know...a while ago, when I still thought it might happen, I downloaded the old song "Dancing in the Streets" and vowed to all of my friends that if Hillary were indicted, I would go out into the street and blast the song over and over, dancing and inviting everyone who walked by to join me.

I know that it would not humiliate Hillary in the slightest, but it's a very out-of-character reaction for me. Maybe all of us have our deep, visceral dislikes (hatreds?) that won't be denied.

CStanley said..."Call me crazy, but I don't assume that most people go through their life as though it's a performance. I generally assume humans have real emotions that they aren't always able to conceal."

So much this. Maybe he's just a fucking human being and he was tired and hurt and terrified for the future and can't believe that so many people can be so stupid.

coupe said..."She wants to be President for the perks. Like Obama, who has expanded Presidential perks to last a lifetime."

Which is what the Bernie people are wise to. She wants it as a bauble, they want to use it to effectuate change. But Trump wants it to show the world how big his dick is, and the thing about a woman who's only in it for the perks and prestige? She isn't likely to toss a nuclear weapon at someone wantonly.

Hillary! was never "humiliated" by her husband's behavior; she made use of it, and in Arkansas days was even suspected of instigating "bimbo eruptions" when needed to divert attention when the hounds were getting to close on the trail of the Clinton's "business" operations.

Althouse wrote: Modeling was her chosen profession and she has real skills that people admire.

This reminded me of a weird line in the Melania profile you linked the other day:

Through a quirk in immigration law, models, nearly half of them without high-school diplomas, are admitted on H-1B visas, as highly skilled workers, along with scientists and computer programmers, who are required to show proof of a college degree.

What a lovely mashup of intellectual snobbery and fake distinction this is! Think of all the athletes, artists, actors, and musicians who work in the U.S. despite not being "highly skilled" workers like "scientists and compute programmers." Of course, through a quirk of immigration law they have O and P visas.

Something like the way Democrats won landslide victories after Richard Nixon's resignation...

Which ought to remind everyone that Hillary's only real accomplishments in life are having married a charming demagogue with unbridled ambition, and staying married to a serial philander and likely rapist. Hillary's one and only claim to political fame is she's Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

I do believe she deserves a certain degree of political fame for her actions related to Benghazi, her private bathroom EMail server, and her quite substantial role in creating the ongoing disaster that is the Middle East and northern Africa. Yes, she deserves quite a bit "fame" for these. Moreover, she and her husband together have made more money trading on political insider influence than any other power couple.

Regarding the sympathy for the crushed Hillary- I don't think it's anything more complex than "lemonade". Feminists decided to stick with the lemons that the Clintons brought, and the only way to do that was to make sympathy lemonade.

CStanley said..."I'm also reminded that you felt the need to point out Ted Cruz slinking off the stage."

Cruz did not deliver a dignified, gracious concession. He performed his humiliation. He must think we like it.

And "slink" was absolutely the right word."

Five will get you ten someone near and dear to us here won't be quite as acidulous when The Bitch Gets Trumped and walks off the stage in utter humiliation by the Orange Buffoon, that being the capstone of her inglorious life in politics. I'm going to revel in her humiliation.

Until very recently I thought Trump would suffer a Mondale-level blowout. I now think he has a fairly good chance at winning if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. I think that massive barrage the DNC is going to unleash on him will leave him more or less unscathed and, ironically, at the end of it all Mrs. Clinton will ask, as poor decent dull old Bob Dole asked of her husband, Where's the outrage?

Nothing they throw at him will shake his supporters. Most of the Republicans who now say he's unacceptable will string along in the end if she's the alternative. All the appalling things about Trump will rally the Democratic base and bring the Sanders people in line. So where does that leave us? My guess is he plays better among independents than she does because he basically is one, and can appeal to them with his gutsy unafraid pragmatist schtick.

My level of happiness about Trump's impending nomination is roughly on par with Simon's, so none of the above is hopeful talk.

JPS said…“Most of the Republicans who now say he's unacceptable will string along in the end if she's the alternative.”

I don’t think so, although I agree re the Bernie people. I’m a little tired of people saying “but isn’t #NeverTrump effectively voting for Hillary?” And my answer has been: No, voting for Hillary is voting for Hillary, and I’m not ruling that out. My plan right now is to cast a write-in ballot, but if I have the slightest doubt that Indiana might elect Trump, I’ll vote for Hillary and I won’t even pretend to feel bad about that, just as I didn’t feel bad voting for Cruz even though I really wanted to vote for Carly. I’m a grown-up. The better outcome prevails or the worse outcome prevails, and I stand without hesitation or regret behind the better outcome. And Hillary being elected with conservatives rallying visibly against Trump, before God and the world, is a FAR better outcome for conservatives than Trump winning and people associating us with him.

I understand the horror and resistance about voting for Clinton, but I think that if we're frank about it, you get people past the sticker-shock. Hillary is the devil, but remember Churchill's wisdom: If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd at least put in a good word for the devil in the House of Commons.

"Humiliation is a reference to a humbling before God. Often to wake up spiritually, first we must be humbled. To listen to Jesus, first we must recognize the power of Jesus. It's human nature, I guess."

Interesting to read that after writing the next post and adding the first comment: "Meade read this post and compared Trump to Jesus."

It has been interesting seeing how many Pure Principled Conservatives crave public humiliation for their status of being The Pure and Principled Ones. It is almost as if they need to build in a self punishment for the pride of Keeping The Rules better.

There have been many examples of them publicly blowing up since a communicator like Trump came down the road and started calling them on their bluff. They are just a right wing version of using Political Correctness. Glen Beck, Mark Levin, Eric Erickson, and assundry CruzBots and Eduardo himself have gone crazy. Cruz was their chosen Idol and their example for all to follow, but he was exposed.

This is actually close to my optimistic rationale, back in the day, for Mrs. Clinton as SecState: I don't like her but she's smart and tough and has a mean streak a mile wide.

Unfortunately, she generally directed it at all the wrong people. She said herself, the enemies she's proudest of are Republicans. And I'm still not sure whether the private server was meant to hide massive pay-for-play corruption, or whether it was simply a precaution that They must not be able to see any communication of hers because they'll turn it into political ammo.

I was moved to re-watch the vids of Cruz suspending his campaign, and as much as I'm loathe to admit it, he did slink. His mood was petulant to say the least, and obvious in the body language. This is fine in private, nobody who looses a campaign for high office can be justly criticized for feeling disappointed and frustrated, but that's for the subrosa conclave with family and close associates. The truly worthy campaigner ought to swallow his wounded pride and be upbeat. He should muster his rhetorical skills and motivate his erstwhile supporters to pull for the team, otherwise he's just a failed demagogue with an après nous le déluge personality issue.

tim maguire said...‘I’m not so sure. Remember a few years back when we all had fun with the USS Hillary Clinton, the aircraft carrier named after America's most uncompromising wartime president? The idea behind it, which made it not so crazy, is the Clintonian attitude of, "don't fuck with what's mine." If Hillary is president, then America is what's hers. And woe unto those who fuck with it.’

Yep. The flipside of what I said earlier about not having to worry about Clinton (unlike Trump) using nuclear weapons wantonly is that no one’s ever had to ask whether Hillary has the nerve to push the button. If the button is required, she’ll push it.

Perhaps she would like to see him raped? Would that be humiliating enough for her?

The urge to rape is tied to an urge to dominate and humiliate. The "real rape" (which Gloria is covering in the first episode of her new show) is an instrument of raw power. (See Berlin, 1945). I don't think Gloria's detestation of rape is less than fully genuine. Based on her current show, it seems she even recognizes its a bigger problem in (say) The Congo than at Yale. Humiliation is an ugly goal whether attached to a penis or not. Bad girl, Gloria.

"Call me crazy, but I don't assume that most people go through their life as though it's a performance. I generally assume humans have real emotions that they aren't always able to conceal."

The concession speech is a performance. If you just come out there and show all your emotions, that too is a choice, a kind of bad performance, like a musician who noodles all night instead of playing a set list.

Cruz wasn't "going through his life" there in the lights on stage at the microphone on Tuesday night. It was a performance and he made choices and he deserves to be held responsible for them.

He was asking to be trusted with the presidency, so he should believe that he is unusually capable of controlling himself and doing what is appropriate under trying circumstances.

"No, voting for Hillary is voting for Hillary, and I’m not ruling that out. My plan right now is to cast a write-in ballot, but if I have the slightest doubt that Indiana might elect Trump, I’ll vote for Hillary and I won’t even pretend to feel bad about that,"

Well, you're a bit more committed than I am. I won't vote Trump to stop Hillary, and I won't feel bad when his supporters say I might as well be voting for her. Neither will I vote Hillary to stop Trump. I feel no obligation to vote for a candidate who appalls me, or to give the tiniest damn when that candidate's supporters accuse me of facilitating the disaster the other represents.

If I agreed with you that Trump will likely use nuclear weapons in a fit of poor impulse control, I might waver on that not-voting-Hillary part. But while I agree with you on most everything you've written about him, I'm not buying that. He has too much to lose and he knows it, and while I don't consider him exactly sane, I think he is a rational actor within his own framework. (Somewhat like the Soviets back in the day.)

Simon said...:CStanley said...'Call me crazy, but I don't assume that most people go through their life as though it's a performance. I generally assume humans have real emotions that they aren't always able to conceal.' So much this. Maybe he's just a fucking human being and he was tired and hurt and terrified for the future and can't believe that so many people can be so stupid."

How arrogant would a man need to be to think like that? The people are so stupid for rejecting me. Seems like the kind of arrogance attributed to Trump. But Trump is calm and gracious when the circumstances call for it.

If Cruz is just that emotional and unable to control it, he should not be trusted with the presidency. As Jeb said about Trump: "He needs therapy."

Cruz has probably sunk his chances of ever being the Senior Senator from Texas. Texans don't like "girly men", or girly girls for that matter. They admire Spartan toughness above all, even honesty (see Lyndon Baines Johnson). From his dirty trick on Ben Carson (The good doctor was a nonstarter from the get-go, why Cruz thought it mete to steal some of his support by spreading rumors of his withdrawal I'll never know.), to that bizarre alliance with Glenn "WTF?" Beck, to The Slink Cruz has been exhibiting all the signs of terminal "girlimanism" that opens a door for some hat with cattle honcho from south of the Pecos to snatch his Senate seat in 2018.

"How arrogant would a man need to be to think like that? The people are so stupid for rejecting me. Seems like the kind of arrogance attributed to Trump. But Trump is calm and gracious when the circumstances call for it."

Cruz didn't say that. That's the lunatic Simon's projection. I agree with you there is something fundamentally sinister about Cruz though.

Of course Trump is calm and gracious when called for. He's like many blue collar NYC types I've known. Warm and friendly for the most part but pugnacious with adversaries. And quick to shake hands and make up after a brawl and be friends again. I understand this personality type and am at ease with it as it is fundamentally direct and honest. I have less trust for the midwestern type that is loathe to say anything offensive and keeps it all bottled up.

JPS wrote: I doubt he thinks that way. I think it's more like, The people are so stupid for rejecting the ideals I represent, which are so transcendently true.

If Cruz actually thinks like that not only does he deserve to loose, the country as a whole as dodged a huge bullet. We're coming through eight years of the overlordship of one messianic narcissist with a society barely intact; we don't need another one is succession.

Part of my taking issue about Cruz "slinking" is that I can't even find video that includes him leaving the stage, which appears to be when that screenshot was grabbed. I find nothing wrong with the entirety of his concession speech, or at least nothing that conveyed the emotions that were ascribed to that one scene. Can someone link to such video?

I also think Althouse's criticism of his supposed inability to hide his emotions, or excessive arrogance at being rejected, ignores the context of the specific defeat he suffered.

Face it. Cruz is weird and unlikable for the vast majority of Americans. He never had a chance to be president. Hillary is indeed a criminal and appears to be a sociopath, but lacks the charm many sociopaths are able to project. It's highly unlikely she can win. I can't disagree more with those who say Trump is the one candidate who can't beat her. I think he will be very effective in exposing her for the fraud she is while drumming away at her disasters as SOS and her flagrant disregard for the law. Her natural imperiousness will cause her to lose it when he gets way inside her OODA loop and deep under her skin. America will then see how ugly and repugnant a human being she really is and no amount of handling and media spin will be able to help her.

Let's trash a perfectly good US Senator from Texas - because he slunk off the stage.

It wasn't just that, and you know it. The Slink was just a parting gesture that says "I'm weak and fragile" just as several other elements of his campaign have done, do you want a list? Texans will pick up on that and someone, a State House veteran most likely with a long Texas heritage, will challenge him and win. Cruz won his Senate seat on one thing and one thing only: his defense of the Second Amendment as Solicitor General under Bush 43.

Unless Cruz can remold himself as a vigorous get-out-the-vote campaigner the "girly man" thing's gonna stick. Not a trashing, but a prediction.

How dare Cruz feel defeated and slink.

Nobody has criticized Cruz for feeling bad about loosing, and you know it, AprilApple. Are you rhetorically pouting to make some obscure ironic construct? I'm baffled. You are normally much more incisive than this.

Ann Althouse said...Cruz did not deliver a dignified, gracious concession. He performed his humiliation. He must think we like it.

Not gracious I'll give you, but his concession wasn't dignified? How so? He was sad. His posture wasn't perfect--his shouldersslumped a bit as he walked away. He's a human being! Where's all that empathy, all that fine-tuned appreciation for the role emotions play in our lives and the power they have (and should have) in our collective decision making? The guy lost the biggest challenge of his professional life (and lost to someone who'd made repeated personal attacks)--he's not allowed to slouch a bit and refrain from singing Trump's praises??

He must think we like it? Maybe he couldn't help himself--he's not an actor--maybe his outward appearance reflected his inward feeling and he wasn't actually intentionally performing for you! Maybe that's one of the things that makes him a "bad" politician, that he's not a great actor. Fine.

For the record I didn't think "slink" was a very nice word to use but insomuch as it matched the picture you posted it appeared accurate (unkind, but accurate). Now you seem to be saying that you think Cruz looked/acted that way deliberately (to get sympathy, I guess) and that bizarre interpretation makes me retroactively judge your word (and picture) choice to be much more mean spirited.

Simon you really are a drama queen. I hope your dramatics are limited to this blog and aren't reflective of your real life. As for your Churchill comparison you conveniently overlooked that Churchill was quite willing to ally with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.

Ann Althouse said…”How arrogant would a man need to be to think like that? The people are so stupid for rejecting me.”

No: The people are so stupid for voting for Trump.

“But Trump is calm and gracious when the circumstances call for it.”

This seems like a reach or rationalization. I’ve not seen anything that I would call “gracious,” and “calm”—well, I mean, there are times when he’s not actually speaking, but that’s not the same thing as calm. You can see him churning away in the background.

“As Jeb said about Trump: ‘He needs therapy.’”

Who doesn’t?

JPS said…“His flaw would be in not stopping to reflect that he was not the guy to represent them - or maybe he does realize that, and that's where the hurt and the defeated body language come in.”

Yep. Anyone who seriously mooted this criticism of Cruz would be far more viciously anti-Trump than I am; it’s makeweight, it’s pretext. “No, no, it’s okay, I can vote for him, that’s not an insane call, he’s calm and gracious when the circumstances call for it, unlike that Cruz guy who just couldn’t control himself.” Eyeroll.

Huh? I don't get it. What's flat on top, slimy on the bottom, and shoves a lot of steam out the front? That's the most insulting aircraft carrier description I can think of, and I haven't heard it used regarding Hillary until I just thought of it.

Ann Althouse said...How arrogant would a man need to be to think like that? The people are so stupid for rejecting me.

Exactly as arrogant as any person needs to be to believe they're the best person for the job of President of the United States.

And, of course, the attitude "the people are stupid for not agreeing with me or not accepting my preferred policies" is exactly the one fully embodied by our current President--for whom you voted! You know, the guy who's arrogant to believe he's a better speech writer than his speech writers, a better policy analyst than his policy analysts, etc. You're fine with THAT guy being President but you think Cruz is too arrogant and/or emotional to be Prez?

Not to get personal, but how would you feel if someone said "oh man, a woman who bursts into tears when confronted by libertarians who think personal (economic) freedom is more important than worry about possible harm to minorities that could be caused by allowing business to discriminate...someone like that needs therapy and if she can't control her emotions in such a setting I don't think she should be allowed to teach young people?"

That'd be bullshit, right? Exactly the kind of bullshit you're putting out there about Cruz now?

Paul said...“It's highly unlikely she can win. I can't disagree more with those who say Trump is the one candidate who can't beat her.”

November is going to be a rough month for you. It’s going to be tough, all these polls are going to be coming in showing that Trump is sunk and you’re going to be in denial and insisting that no, no, the polls are always wrong, and then election day’s going to get here and every metric is going to show Trump losing and you still just won’t believe it or face the fact until the results come in and you’ll somehow be genuinely stunned and shocked that she beat him like a drum(pf).

cubanbob said...“As for your Churchill comparison you conveniently overlooked that Churchill was quite willing to ally with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.”

Overlooked? What did you think the point was? That was it! Churchill was willing to ally with a person whose views were antithetical to his in order to defeat a greater threat. He allied with Stalin to stop Hitler; I’ll ally with Hillary to stop a nuclear-armed Mussolini.

HoodlumDoodlum said...“‘Not to get personal, but how would you feel if someone said "oh man, a woman who bursts into tears when confronted by libertarians who think personal (economic) freedom is more important than worry about possible harm to minorities that could be caused by allowing business to discriminate...someone like that needs therapy and if she can't control her emotions in such a setting I don't think she should be allowed to teach young people?’ That'd be bullshit, right? Exactly the kind of bullshit you're putting out there about Cruz now?

Paul said:I can't disagree more with those who say Trump is the one candidate who can't beat her. I think he will be very effective in exposing her for the fraud she is while drumming away at her disasters as SOS and her flagrant disregard for the law. Her natural imperiousness will cause her to lose it when he gets way inside her OODA loop and deep under her skin. America will then see how ugly and repugnant a human being she really is and no amount of handling and media spin will be able to help her.

This is fantasy, and I'm sure you will enjoy the negative ads Trump throws at her but please don't kid yourself. A majority of Americans already dislike her, but a portion of those who dislike her will vote for her anyway. And those who don't already dislike her? What could they possibly learn now that would change their minds?

Hillary is winning the Dem primaries in a humiliating way. Hillary can win the general in a humiliating way. That would be a good outcome. People need to quit looking to the president as the Wizard of Oz. The position has taken on too much of an aura and arrogated to much power it was never meant to have. A humiliated embarrassment of a president like Hillary will be a good thing.

Look, he lost. Trump beat him, he's gone. He didn't deserve the kind of treatment he got during the campaign but we as a culture don't have a problem with it (it being personal attacks, attacks on his wife's appearance, bizarre stuff about his father, etc) so that's the reality.He didn't stand up straight when leaving the stage and you think that shows he's too out of control of his emotions and shouldn't be President because of that weakness. Luckily for you he's not in the race now, so problem solved. Quaestor thinks his campaign performance shows he's a weak politician (and I guess a weak person) and expects someone to defeat him in an election for TX senator. Fine, that might happen too. Cruz is a very smart man (who cares about the law) and he seemed to sincerely believe in and want to fight for a number of conservative causes (pro 2A, pro small gov, etc). That was enough for a lot of people, but not enough for ENOUGH people to make him the nominee. That's how it goes. If his losing isn't enough and it makes you feel better to denigrate him as a person, go right ahead--I don't see how people who think his ideas an positions were correct and worth fighting for (even though he wasn't the ideal candidate) benefit from doing that, but then again what do I know--I didn't vote for Trump.

mccullough said..."Hillary is winning the Dem primaries in a humiliating way. Hillary can win the general in a humiliating way. That would be a good outcome. People need to quit looking to the president as the Wizard of Oz. The position has taken on too much of an aura and arrogated to much power it was never meant to have. A humiliated embarrassment of a president like Hillary will be a good thing."

Amen.

AprilApple said..."I find that Trump supporters are more of a turn-off that Trump. Up your game."

Right, because Trump, at least, doesn't claim that Donald Trump would be a good President. He's just in it for the ride; it's the idiots who vote for him who are the biggest problem, and they'll be a problem after he's bounced off the stage, too.

"November is going to be a rough month for you. It’s going to be tough, all these polls are going to be coming in showing that Trump is sunk and you’re going to be in denial and insisting that no, no, the polls are always wrong"

First you're wrong in thinking I will be in denial if the polls are against Trump. I will be disappointed but will accept the fact that he's going to lose.

Second it's your OPINION that Hillary will beat Trump. You have no crystal ball and from what I've seen of your posting this week you have at best a tenuous grasp on reality and any predictions you make can be dismissed out of hand.

Until this year I've only witnessed such childishness and embarrassing behavior from liberals suffering from BDS and such. Now I see people like you, cuckservatives, are just as bad, and should be treated just like any other crazy-eyed muttering loon one would cross the street to avoid.

Overlooked? What did you think the point was? That was it! Churchill was willing to ally with a person whose views were antithetical to his in order to defeat a greater threat. He allied with Stalin to stop Hitler; I’ll ally with Hillary to stop a nuclear-armed Mussolini."

If your going to use history and historical persons then do so accurately. Churchill tried to make nice with Mussolini to keep him out of the war and thus aid Germany. Mussolini was definitely the junior Satan compared to Hitler. Hillary is the greater devil compared to Trump and no Trump is bombastic and a world class bullshitter but unlike Hillary he isn't a paranoid. Paranoids are dangerous people. You don't want a paranoid with the finger on the nuclear trigger. Fortunately in either case we actually do have a chain of command composed of sane people who aren't going to execute a nuclear attack just because Dear Leader had a bad hair day. Again, enough of the over the top dramatics.

Simon wrote: Right, because Trump, at least, doesn't claim that Donald Trump would be a good President. He's just in it for the ride; it's the idiots who vote for him who are the biggest problem, and they'll be a problem after he's bounced off the stage, too.

Actually I admire Cruz for his competitive lawyer attitude. He has a line of programmed spiel he learned from local East Texas politics. It worked well in the Big 12 country. But in SEC country it was too simple, and in New England and the Midwest it was ignored. ( Wisconsin just used Cruz as stalking horse for Ryan).

It is well known that Cruz is a Bush family deep cover mole.Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I say CruzBots to refer to the automatic use a liturgy of robotic talking points that are supposed to contain the power that crushes realists with Ronald Reagan's Pure Ideology. But that Reagan ideology disappeared back in 1986 during the Iran Contra Hearings and the onset Alzheimer Days that even Nancy's Astrologers could not fix.

Professor, the desire for humiliation is personal. Reserved, for persons who are not mere opponents but who are themselves odious, offensive, bullies, etc.

Trump is all of those things. Immoral, fake, ignorant,9 pandering, insulting, venal; I assure you, Professor, that it is the personal ugliness of Donald Trump that animates at least some of the hatred of Trump from the world of a academic reform conservatism. It definitely informs my own personal hatred of Trump.

"True conservatives are as annoying and boring as true liberals. They won't change their mind and won't change the subject."

Exactly. Fuck them all. Fortunately they are a minority as they spring from a subset of people who have narcissistic issues. Always have to be right. Need constant agreement and reassurance. Anyone who disagrees is stupid, venal or both.

Why *was* Cruz so sanctimonious? I was going to say it plays well in a courtroom or college parliamentary debate roleplay, but I think not even there (or only rarely, when you're talking about how exquisitely culpable a 300lb child rapist is).

mccullough said…“True conservatives are as annoying and boring as true liberals.”

Oh, I’m a “true conservative” now? You think that’s an insult? Well, now, I take that as a compliment. But you guys have to coordinate: You can’t the one fault me for not being a conservative because I won’t vote for liberal Don AND fault me for being a conservative because I won’t vote for liberal Don.

cubanbob said...“If your going to use history”

If YOU’RE going to use English, you might want to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re.”

“Churchill tried to make nice with Mussolini to keep him out of the war and thus aid Germany. Mussolini was definitely the junior Satan compared to Hitler.”

You keep saying these things that are essentially reiterating my point, but you say them like you think that restating my point in different ways is refuting it. Churchill correctly recognized the greater threat and did what was necessary to stop it, no matter that it was personally distasteful. Trump is the greater threat, ergo he must be stopped. It was the prissy failure to hand-wringy moderates to recognize that reality, their squeamish unwillingness to follow the logic of “Trump can’t be the nominee” to its only possible conclusion (“therefore I will vote for Cruz”) that produced this mess. If Trump can’t be President, and he can’t, that may mean we have to get our hands dirty stopping it, depending on whether we live in a state where the outcome is in doubt—which will not be many states, but Indiana may be one, although Cook has ALREADY downgraded it from Solid R to Likely R and it’s been less than 48 hours.

tim maguire said...The idea behind it, which made it not so crazy, is the Clintonian attitude of, "don't fuck with what's mine." If Hillary is president, then America is what's hers. And woe unto those who fuck with it.

That's the theory, anyway.

The theory that the Dems would take ownership of and accept responsibility for the nation if given the Presidency (that they'd stop blaming the Republicans for all problems, that they'd stop pretending getting things done was a simple matter of getting those stupid Repubs out of the way [resetting foreign policy, etc], and so on) should by now have been proven false to you, tim. That was my one hope when Obama was elected (well, that and the racial healing angle...which also didn't exactly work out), and although events have shown that to have been a naive hope I don't think it was crazy at the time to think that if they were put in charge the Dems would have to cut the shit and "own" tough problems.

We're 7+ years down the line, though, and obviously that hasn't happened. There is NO reason to think it would magically happen if Bill's wife gets elected, so I reject the idea that the theory should be treated seriously in any way.

Similarly, it's dumb to assume that the Media will be any tougher on Clinton than they are on Obama. It's true they seem to like her less...but after all she's a Lefty Dem, so she's still one of theirs. Unfortunately the hope that "well now they can't ignore her statement X and her scandal Y and her utter lie about Z" is unfounded. Sorry, folks: it's not going to get better.

Not 48 hours and the Trumpkins are already branding conservatives as the enemy. Duly noted.

If you're wondering why Conservatives (and libertarians) are fleeing the Republican Party for #NeverTrump, that's why. Because his supporters aren't conservatives and barely even pretended to be before; now they've dropped the mask. And when your candidate craters, you'll be left with nothing.

Jonathan Graehl said...Why *was* Cruz so sanctimonious? I was going to say it plays well in a courtroom or college parliamentary debate roleplay, but I think not even there (or only rarely, when you're talking about how exquisitely culpable a 300lb child rapist is).

It's a fair question as his manner was off putting to quite a lot of people, and it's definitely something he'll need to work on if he intends to run for Prez again, but the evidence that his manner/mannerisms do "play well" in those settings would seem to be that he's been very successful in those settings, no?

It's kind of like me saying I don't think Pres. Obama's speech style is very good (esp. not when extemporaneous), what with the long pauses, the obvious straw men and false choices delivered as (fake) profundities, the stammering, etc. His speechmaking nonetheless was good enough to help him win the Presidency.

Now maybe that's a personal taste issue and it's the case that Cruz's style was simply less popular than Obama's. Cruz lost the nomination fight so it's certainly true that his style either hurt him or at the very least wasn't enough to help him win in that arena. I'm not sure that's enough to show that his style is a net negative in those other contexts, though.

I liked most of Cruz's positions but I didn't much like his style of delivery and the sanctimonious nature of his delivery. Personally I thought the positions outweighed the style but I understood that the general election will depend on style more than positions so I don't fault people for not voting for him on that basis (that his particular style would likely prove unpopular in a general election). I am unconvinced that Trump's particular style will fare better, but I suppose it's possible.

What makes you think the vast majority of GOP primary voters who voted for someone other than Cruz agreed with his positions? His positions seem to be rejected by a majority of GOP voters. This is consistent with most people's views of government. They like the programs that benefit them and complain about the programs they don't like. HW, Dole, W, McCain, Romney, and Trump. I'd say GOP voters aren't into applied conservative principles. Symbolic flummery, yes. How far did W's modest proposal to offer an option to privatize a portion of SS to those interested fare? How unpopular is Medicare Part D? GOP voters like big federal government just as much as Dems and independents. It's not he message, no the messenger

Agree with your 10:39, HoodlumDoodlum, along with most everything else you've posted lately.

My take on Cruz's style harkens back to what some other commenter here noted a few weeks ago- it's as if Sheldon from BBT were running for president. I think Cruz is a major nerd, and the style you see is kind of the most effective he can muster under those circumstances. Take, for instance, the reference to his love of pop culture- he cites movie lines and such like Aspie kids talk about insects.

I find it sad, because last time around we threw away a chance at a good and competent man, Romney, for stylistic reasons and now we've thrown a highly intelligent man to the curb. Style over substance, every time, and then we wonder at the messes we find ourselves in.

Seeing the opposition as people who are merely wrong but acting in good faith is quaint. Now it's all about good vs. evil, so it's no longer the "opposition" but the "enemy" and must be vanquished, humiliated, and next spread salt on their land so nothing can ever grow there.

I cannot hate people I have never met. I think Hillary Clinton would make America a worse country with less chance for creativity, job growth, economic growth and defense. But I reserve hate for people I personally know (few of those) and things beyond my control (death of children).

The federal government is unmoored. The president should not be so important but the policy preferences of many - like Althouse - require an over-large federal government.

mccullough said...What makes you think the vast majority of GOP primary voters who voted for someone other than Cruz agreed with his positions?

No, that's right, I don't have any reason to think that most of the people who didn't vote for Cruz agree with his positions. I'd like to think that some of them do agree with his positions but didn't think he was a good-enough spokesperson for them, but I don't have any evidence for that. On the evidence of the actual votes I agree we have to conclude that most of the primary-voting Republicans didn't agree w/Cruz's positions or, at best, didn't approve of them enough to overcome other considerations or reservations they had about him as a candidate.

I agree with Cruz on some of his positions, but my main concern is our porous border so Trump gets my support. Aspects of his personality annoy me, but I find Cruz's entire persona off-putting, and I believe I'm in a solid majority.

mccullough said...What makes you think the vast majority of GOP primary voters who voted for someone other than Cruz agreed with his positions?

No, that's right, I don't have any reason to think that most of the people who didn't vote for Cruz agree with his positions. I'd like to think that some of them do agree with his positions but didn't think he was a good-enough spokesperson for them, but I don't have any evidence for that. On the evidence of the actual votes I agree we have to conclude that most of the primary-voting Republicans didn't agree w/Cruz's positions or, at best, didn't approve of them enough to overcome other considerations or reservations they had about him as a candidate.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. It seems to me that the Tea Partiers who claimed to be strong Constitutionalists and small government advocates mainly sold out for Trump, but maybe the group consisted of two different types and the few who really did hold to those principles became Cruz voters while the rest broke for Trump.

An interesting piece in the Federalist today placed weight on John Roberts' Obamacare decision, in that people felt that the institutions are so broken that they needed to get their own strongman now. I wonder, does ithat ring true for Trump supporters here?

CStanley said.."I've been thinking about this quite a bit. It seems to me that the Tea Partiers who claimed to be strong Constitutionalists and small government advocates mainly sold out for Trump, but maybe the group consisted of two different types and the few who really did hold to those principles became Cruz voters while the rest broke for Trump."

Ben Howe has an excellent piece about that. When the tea party happened, I was generally approving, but didn't jump in because I was worried by the populist cast of it. Still, the tea party professed to be about small government and fiscal responsibility and conservatism, and yay for that. But what we've now realized is that the populist overtones and undertones were because a lot of people backing the tea party were actually just pissed about too many brown people and bring back my jobs and cut government spending on things that benefit people other than me—no more NEA but don't you dare touch my social security! In hindsight, it should have been a MASSIVE red-flag when we started seeing tea partiers claiming that SS isn't welfare. These people were backing a completely different play from us, and I think that maybe neither they nor we realized it. So it's not that they sold out for Trump, it's that they were never actually "strong Constitutionalists and small government advocates" in the first place—they just mouthed those words without comprehending them, much as many young people are for Bernie without really being able to articulate why. They were just kind of swept along and they assumed that we wanted the same things as the and vice-versa.

This "Trump isn't a conservative" trope is getting old. Most of the smart players have given it up (see Power Line) because their game is already lost, and not a a small way lost by that very trope. Meade pointed out the "true" fallacy to which I'll add the fact that conservative hasn't much meaning today outside of "opposing liberalism", whatever that is. The "true conservatives" are the Hillaries and the Debbies of today's political scene. Their goal is to conserve the status quo, which suits them. The true opposition to Hillary are the revolutionaries: one from the Left and one from the Right.

Rush Limbaugh just did his own version/retelling of Chris Matthews' open-mic comment on Melania Trump.

And in fairness to Chris Matthews -- who scarcely deserves fairness in reporting himself -- Limbaugj butchered the story beyond recognition. Limbaugh listeners will conclude that Matthews was virtually slobbering with lust.

This is the sort of thing where I credit Althouse. So why she would overlook Trump's status as a vaxxer, a birther, a truther, a boor, and a serial filer of nuisance lawsuits (oh, and a current civil-fraud defendant), is beyond me.

Quaestor underscores my point: 'This "Trump isn't a conservative" trope is getting old ... conservative hasn't much meaning today outside of "opposing liberalism", whatever that is. The "true conservatives" are the Hillaries and the Debbies of today's political scene. Their goal is to conserve the status quo, which suits them. The true opposition to Hillary are the revolutionaries: one from the Left and one from the Right.' Again, we see very clearly what's happening here: The Trumpkins aren't conservatives and don't even pretend to be. Verily, conservatives are the problem, the enemy! The real Republicans are right-wing revolutionaries!

All this is hilarious once one remembers that the foundational text of conservatism was written in opposition to revolution, and conservatism is an attitude that fears and contemns revolution as the worst possible outcome. These Trump people have literally no idea what they're talking about when they're talking about conservatism, and if they want to help me make it clear that Trumpism isn't conservatism and vice versa, that's fine by me. Trumpism isn't conservatism, and no conservative can or should back Trumpism. If the Republican party has been seized by Trumpism, conservatives are out and no appeal to "party unity" will avail.

The nuclear issue may work well for Hillary. However, she presents herself as a continuation of Obama and supports the deal that virtually assures the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. And it's hard to imagine a bigger nuclear threat than Iran. After all, they have already promised to use nuclear weapons.

I'm not a Trump fan but I like that he opposes the Iran deal. Hopefully He can do some counter punching on this issue.

Yes, Simon, thanks for the link, that's exactly what I guessed at, viewing the Tea Party from a distance.

FWIW, having read your comments here this week, I highly recommend Rod Dreher and consideration of the Benedict Option he's been pushing. Consider that the dual betrayals you note in the Church and GOP might be signposts.

What a lovely mashup of intellectual snobbery and fake distinction this is! Think of all the athletes, artists, actors, and musicians who work in the U.S. despite not being "highly skilled" workers like "scientists and compute programmers."

Hell, I'm a computer programmer and I think the distinction there is BS intellectual snobbery, yes.

If we're going to have special visas for people who Do Stuff We Want To Import, models are as valid as anyone else.

All this is hilarious once one remembers that the foundational text of conservatism was written in opposition to revolution, and conservatism is an attitude that fears and contemns revolution as the worst possible outcome.

Simon hilariously forgets that Burke praised the American revolution before he condemned the French one. Burke was prescient enough to see the subtle difference between those two upheavals of entrenched power (One wonders if Simon is so gifted.) One led to constitutional liberty, the other to totalitarianism and later Bonapartist despotism in reaction. I may also point out the hilarious forgetfulness of Simon regarding Thomas Jefferson who foresaw the necessity of revolution from time to time given political power innately seeks to usurp individual autonomy. And the great Ronald Reagan who was also called a revolutionary by his admires and his critics.

Quaestor said...This "Trump isn't a conservative" trope is getting old. Most of the smart players have given it up (see Power Line) because their game is already lost, and not a a small way lost by that very trope.

Well I'll agree in part--it is getting old, but only because it doesn't matter, not because it's not true. Whatever else Trump is he's not a conservative. He has won (or nearly won) the Republican nomination, though, so the fact that he's not a conservative did not matter enough to prevent that win. Enough Republicans (or, at any rate, people qualified to vote in Republican primary & caucus contests) voted for Trump, so the fact that he's not a conservative does not matter.

" that the foundational text of conservatism was written in opposition to revolution, and conservatism is an attitude that fears and contemns revolution as the worst possible outcome."

This is a misreading of Burke.

Consider - In opposing a Republican (antimonarchist) measure -

"This new and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only. The body of the people of England have no share in it. They utterly disclaim it. They will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do so by the laws of their country made at the time of that very Revolution which is appealed to in favor of the fictitious rights claimed by the Society which abuses its name."

The Trumpening is, in every way, more of a counter-revolution, by the "body of the people", which obviously Burke was not opposed to.

I myself was a small part of a similar conservative counter-revolution, 1983-86, which sought, as its unifying thread, to restore an old Republic versus a usurper who had in gradual steps overturned all the old institutions. Thats why our leader was our Cardinal-Archbishop.

Trump is not as nice a man nor as holy as the much missed Jaime Sin, but the cause is not so different.

CStanley“FWIW, having read your comments here this week, I highly recommend Rod Dreher and consideration of the Benedict Option he's been pushing. Consider that the dual betrayals you note in the Church and GOP might be signposts.”

The problem with the Benedict Option is that it presupposes that the state is indifferent rather than actively hostile. The progressive state isn’t interested in leaving us alone, it means to break us, which is again why it was so important that we win this year—something that now, thanks to the Trumpkins, is impossible. The road ahead tracks into craggy land under darkening skies.

Quaestor said…“Simon hilariously forgets that Burke praised the American revolution before he condemned the French one.”

Quaestor hilariously forgets that there was no “American revolution”—that the colonists believed that their cause was fundamentally counterrevolutionary, opposing encroachment by the crown on the settled order. (Read the Declaration of Independence.) That’s the Burke argument that Buwaya makes in a later comment, and it’s must stronger (although not, of course, persuasive).

“I may also point out the hilarious forgetfulness of Simon regarding Thomas Jefferson who foresaw the necessity of revolution from time to time given political power innately seeks to usurp individual autonomy.”

You mistake utter contempt for forgetfulness. Jefferson was a vile human being, the most loathsome man of a founding generation that included Tom Paine, not exactly a nice man himself.

FullMoon said...“Simon identifies with Churchill? Typical libtard. As for ‘the button’, [sic.] fuck a bunch of foreigners. Eliminate the competition, more jobs for decent, hardworking Americans. Seriously, what is the downside to nuking Iran and China and North Korea? We can be friends with Russia, as they are mostly white babyboomers. Am I right?”

Buyawa I enjoy your comments and insights but I don't get the comparison (for that matter, from outside looking in I'm not sure that the body of the people movements in the Phillipines were that successful to inspire us toward a similar measure here, but I mean no disrespect- it just seems as though one corrupt figure was replaced by others.)

One very big difference is the lack of cultural glue to hold contemporary America together, in the event of political uprising.

Also, comparing Teump to Sin, it's not just that Trump isn't a nice man, it's the lack of a guiding principle that isn't based on self interest that would concern me,

No, a reactionary is someone who tries to revert to a status quo ante, usually but not always an imagined one. The Buchananites and similar Paleocons are the reactionary faction in American politics, and the Trumpkins are the same way: Their slogan is literally the distillation of reactionary views, "make America great again." We were once great, something went wrong, we have to change it back. We had jobs and we have to bring them back artificially. It seems to me that the Trump base comprises the Buchananite wing of the GOP plus an influx of working-class whites who had hitherto voted Democratic, rounded out by a bunch of suckers who fell for this schtick and a handful of "can't we all pull together for the sake of the party" types.

Re CStanley on the comparison vs the Philippines - " it just seems as though one corrupt figure was replaced by others"

We are comparing societies that are very different - in the case of the Philippines the change bought by the revolution was a matter of degree - as with most revolutions really.

Marcos managed to obtain personal control of nearly every significant industry, to grant or withhold permission to export or import, of all internal and foreign finance, the power to license every internal investment. It was much like Venezuela, and in some ways worse than that. We aren't talking about simple corruption.

Afterwards the ancient status quo returned - there were again multiple power blocks and the good old anarchy was back. This was not and isn't a particularly good situation (though there has been some astonishing progress at times), but it was far better than the hole Marcos dug.

The comparisons I am making are however purely political. Sin won through his strategic vision and his leadership, aspects of which are well worth taking as lessons. Its why military thinkers study Napoleon.

The problem with the Benedict Option is that it presupposes that the state is indifferent rather than actively hostile. The progressive state isn’t interested in leaving us alone, it means to break us, which is again why it was so important that we win this year—something that now, thanks to the Trumpkins, is impossible. The road ahead tracks into craggy land under darkening skies.

I agree that's problematic, but disagree as to the degree. The First Amendment is bloodied up but it still lives (and to whatever degree Christians withdraw from politics, that is one front where we must still fight.) I think you attribute too much power to progressives, who may be winning battles but now but they'll be stuck trying to govern over the chaos they create.

I think a bigger problem with the BO is theological- are we really called to withdraw or to go out and evangelize?

"Their slogan is literally the distillation of reactionary views, "make America great again." We were once great, something went wrong, "

Well, yes, that is a reactionary position. There is no reason reactionary positions are wrong. I'm a Catholic, so I am by necessity utterly convinced of a whole lot of reactionary positions.

Anyway, the Trumpist reactionary position is very well supported. Sticking to generic macroeconomic data their case is sound. The US common man has been doing badly, for the last ten years and very plausibly for longer than that. There has been no worthwhile response at all from NRO on this. Worse, as any student of political theory will tell you, when men lose income and prospects of advancement, while still recalling better days, that is a formula for trouble. Going deeper into more specific social statistics the case gets even more solid. There is a reason the natives are restless. Would be sahibs would do well to investigate why.

I am a foreigner who has seen and been through many matters of "development economics" (used to consult for the Asian Development Bank during my career on that side). There is no reason the US should not be subject to the same sorts of analysis as Thailand or the Philippines. Hurt the standard of living of the common man and you can expect trouble. This case is open and shut.

What will be humiliating is how badly Hillary loses. I've talked to three friends on Facebook so far this afternoon - one woman and two men. All are within 2 years of my age (31 next month). All are Obama voters who were (and are) vocally supportive of Sanders (though one of my friends voted for McCain - I don't really know how the others voted in 2008 or before). None, that I saw or read, had any serious ill feelings towards Hillary, aside from the ill feelings that most Americans have - but they never posted anything like a #NeverHillary hashtag.

One of the men doesn't want to vote at all if Bernie loses. He said if I put a gun to his head, he'd probably vote Clinton, because he feels Obama's policies just haven't started working yet and he wants to give them more time. Copied and pasted, "Obama sucks at reaching out but the gop really had him in their sights so it's stupid to blame him for all the obstruction. it was the republicans who started it anyway IIRC"

The other, who I do a lot of car repairs with (though we rarely talk politics in person) has basically given up hope on Bernie. He plans to vote for Trump over Clinton because he is very angry about illegal immigration. I asked him why he supported Sanders, and he replied: "because I'm angrier about Wallst and the banks than the illegals but they're both a problem that Hillary won't touch".

The woman is on the fence. I asked her why she was having trouble making up her mind to vote for Hillary if (when) Bernie loses. Her response, copied and pasted: "because shes a corrupt bitch". I asked for her opinions about Trump. Her response, also copied and pasted: "maybe he's orange and rude bt he also loves America" & "loving this country is important to me". I asked her if she'd consider voting for him, and her response: "Pat can't wait to vote for him!!!" & "I want to see more before I choose" (Pat is her boyfriend, maybe fiance, I don't know him that well). She expects a brokered convention and is still hoping Bernie can score a good share of superdelegates, though she is somewhat confused by the process (as am I, frankly).

Anecdotal? You betcha. But also true, and not what I expected. I thought all three would vote for Clinton over Trump, or stay out, if those were their choices.

I reached out to 2 other friends that I think are Bernie supporters (one doesn't post much but did share a pic of Bernie with the bird on his podium from awhile back with a praising caption). Both are probably at work, and not checking FB. If I get a convo going, I'll post the results - whatever they may be. One is a woman, the other is a man (who doesn't post much).

I'm skeptical of a Trump win but can also vouch for more Bernie supporters going third party or staying home if Hilldog gets the nomination.

The party is absolutely split. Most Bernie supporters want nothing to do with her.

Is the "polling" people are relying on the same polling that said Hillary was the inevitable nominee? I guess if you're running a Democratic party that actually believes it can take the Confederacy in a general, then there's your unbeatable nominee. But obviously not all Democrats are that dumb.

Despite my skepticism, having seen what I've seen from the MSM this year, I'm willing to entertain the notion that the pro-Hillary over Trump cheerleading is of a piece with the nonsense that anointed her the so-called inevitable nominee and buried all coverage of Bernie, even as he trounced her ass in 18 states so far.

But will Trump turn off more people than Hillary will? I think so. And first-time female national candidates have a way of using gender-ism to convince male voters that they're just not being fair enough to her. So even if she wins a first term, a second is far from a given - but hopefully a successful impeachment will come first. Iconic first-woman-in-office pols almost always seem to overstep their bounds in terms of legal if not political authority. And remember, Hillary has no actual political skills - by her own admission!

So her raging hemorrhoid of a husband will be running that office and it will only be a matter of time until people wake up to the fact that a Frankenstein presidency just won't work - especially one where the master pulling the puppet's strings has gotten so ill-tempered and out of touch with the people as Billjob Clinton has become.

I don't cheer for a Trump win - (despite at least agreeing with where he's coming from). But I absolutely cheer on a Hillary loss.